I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace
There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted
“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”
Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.
Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.
Another common one is
“buh only criminals will have guns”,
except that never happens in any other developed nation.
Its for self defense
Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.
/rant
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.
Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.
In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.
I’m sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s
That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.
Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.
Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.
Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.
It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.
btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded.
I want to add to this, because it’s never mentioned.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.
Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there’s no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.
So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.
But… We did that. We won. We have a “democracy” now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.
Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?
The 2nd Amendment is from 1791, decades after the US had become an independent country. So you can’t blame this one on the British.
The quote I’ve heard most often:
No law (sometimes: piece of paper) is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime.
Truly one of the dumbest takes of all time. If laws weren’t at least somewhat effective, there would be no point in having laws.
Sad watching people like you type out a bunch of nonsense as though it’s true.
I guess that’s why people like you are so ‘up in arms’ about gun control; you’re living in a fantasy world where you think that criminals don’t have guns in other developed nations.
The guy who killed Shinzo Abe in Japan literally had to build the gun and was only able to do so efficiently because he was an ex-member of the JMSDF.
That’s how hard it is to get a gun in Japan. And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
Nice cherrypicking.
Thanks for supporting my point about living in a fantasy world, lol.
And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
It must be the guns, right? Not their culture? What about nations that ban guns but have higher homicide rates than Japan or even the U.S.?
It’s weird, my guns have never committed a mass shooting, yet people say that they’re a problem…
Not a single shooting has been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Here’s some light reading for you.
Indiana shooter stopped by civilian
Why would you make a claim that us so easily debunked? What purpose did that serve?
I feel like there’s some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I’ll be honest, I don’t know the statistics on “rightful” and “wrongful” executions.
There’s at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.
I hope the writer for this article makes residuals. They’re getting a lot of use out of it
They do actually rewrite it slightly each time they repost it, even though the title is the same
They just change the date, city, number of victims, and then change the fake person’s name for the quote. The rest stays exactly the same.
It would be darkly funny if they had an “____ Days Since We Had to Repost This” counter for it.
That’s the real American tragedy, that we’ve been beaten into believing that “nothing can be done to prevent this.” Something COULD be done, it just won’t be. I’m sure as we learn more about this reprehensible idiot who caused this sick misery, we’ll come to find out there were all kinds of red flags on his social media posts and his emails and his past arrest records and yet nobody bothered to take them seriously, or cared enough about him to connect him with psychotherapy and medication. Sad. Because the truth is, this kind of thing is always ENTIRELY preventable - if only Americans were smarter about gun control and less obsessed with violence as some sort of solution (which it never is). A sad country indeed.
He was committed to a mental health facility for two weeks in the summer of 2023. He’s talked about hearing voices. He’s threatened to shoot up a National Guard station. He and his associates are well-known local right-wing militia gun nuts that “people knew to stay away from.” None of that was sufficient to restrict his access to firearms.
If this is true, then I think it’s safe to say that these shootings aren’t being taken seriously by our government on purpose. I don’t know what the purpose is, but it sure feels like it.
The GOP benefits from these attacks in my view, especially when they’re in power. It makes it impossible for the news to cover the reprehensible things they do when mass murders happen every week.
If you’re terrified of being shot you won’t mind having armed police everywhere.
I don’t even really care about guns. I don’t like them and wish there were far fewer of them, but if reducing the number and availability of guns is off the table, there’s still plenty of room to work – and if this political conversation had even one shred of honesty, we’d be working even with that constraint.
Even in gun policy, there’s so much reform we could make to reduce danger that doesn’t impact someone’s ability to own a gun. For example, universal registration, repeal the Dickey amendment and fund research, impose strict liability to gun owners for crimes committed with their guns.
And most people seem to support red flag laws and universal background checks, but for some reason we can’t expand those either?
Not to mention that it is a simple matter of fact that the US can and does ban all kinds of arms. And, aside from a tiny lunatic fringe, no one really thinks it is an issue. You can’t just have and bring with you a fighter jet, a tank. You can’t open carry explosive ordinance. You can’t go to a gun show and buy chemical WMDs or bio-weapons. You can’t drive around with a full machine gun mounted to the flatbed of your 3-ton pickup. We have rules that are uncontentious, and the idea that maybe some types of modern guns should be in the same category is fiddling with a line in the sand.
And guns are only a small part of the picture. We need poverty intervention and social welfare. We need consent-based policing and the better training that comes with it. We need to fix our urban design so people have better third places and are less isolated from one another. Yet if you try to do anything like this, the same people that fetishize guns will absolutely refuse to even think about it and will indeed try to roll back what does exist to make the problems worse.
At the end, it’s a very two-sided debate. One side wants to test and try changes to make things maybe even just a bit better. The other refuses to do anything and would like for it to even be a bit worse.
Wait, did it happen again?
“We did nothing and we are all out of options!”
